Just curious as to what everybody thinks about the up coming elections....heres a link to a web site someone sent me in an email...

http://www.jibjab.com/

as for me these guys are gettin my vote

BriEOD

10-06-2004, 10:58 PM

Me 2! :toast:

Mag_Red

10-06-2004, 11:08 PM

:toast: The animation on that site was hysterical! :purplaugh

Hoosier Bob

10-06-2004, 11:44 PM

I hope there are a lot of us! One thing is for sure the Texan does what he says and says what he does. No surprises! :D

Lake_Tippy_Skier

10-06-2004, 11:49 PM

Me 2! :toast:
me too :popcorn:

MasterCrafting

10-07-2004, 12:11 AM

Me 2! :toast:

I cant vote yet but thats where i stand! :D

Cody

10-07-2004, 12:22 AM

No, Democrats yet???

I won't be the first. I believe Bush is a man of his word and has made the world a better place. You really can't ask for mare than that can you?

sfitzgerald351

10-07-2004, 12:33 AM

Wow.... a lot of Republicans on here.... Time to stir up the pot a bit! :purplaugh As a resident of Massachusetts I'm well aware of Kerry. He's not my ideal Presidential candidate. But I think he's a far better candidate than Bush. My reasoning.... (or at least two) :rant:

1.) Bush provoked a war we didn't need, can't afford (have you added up the $$$ we're spending on Iraq?) and that in my eyes puts us at greater risk for being a target because we've pissed off even more people. We are a powerfull nation, but need to learn to mind our own business from time to time. Millions are being displaced in Africa, we've labeled the Sudanese situation as Genocide (remember Hitler?) but we're not doing anything much to help there. Why not? As for terrorists, take all the money being spent in Iraq and put more police on the streets here to reduce the chances of terrosists being able to do anything bad and at the same time reduce the number of killings etc... from Americans killing Americans which is far larger than most attacks would be (~12,000 firearm related homicides occur every year). Heck, we've already spent $154 billion on this war and are on track to spend about another $50 billion PER YEAR we are there. THAT'S A TON OF MONEY. Like the funding 1,000,000 more cops at $50,000 per year! Iraq is about Bush's interests, his family's interests and his friend's interests (oh and by the way, war usually helps get politician's elected, especially ones who were very unsuccesful in getting any of their domestic policies passed.

2.) Bush has relaxed many of the environmental regulations. I love to water ski. I own a big gas guzzling boat and a big gas guzzling truck so I'm usually lumped in with being against environmental regulations. But I also believe that more efficient engines and protection for the waterways I enjoy are important. With Bush the EPA loses power to enforce existing laws. With Bush laws are rewritten to favor industry, not the environment and certainly not our pocketbooks. Do some research on the energy policy just passed and you'll see that you'll be paying more for energy and the environment will suffer.

I agree that Bush is a man of his word. The problem is that he's saying the wrong things!

Finally, I'd encourage everyone to go see Farenheight 9/11. It's a bit over the top and sensational. But the underlying facts are true and even if you ignore Moore's connecting the dots you will still see what kind of lazy, helping my friends before the American people, kind of President we have. I prefer the alternative.

Flame suit on :eek:

sfitzgerald351

10-07-2004, 12:51 AM

I thought these were well written articles supporting my viewpoint. They certainly do a better job than I do and have the facts documented for you.

And hopefully none of this will get taken the wrong way, but will be understood to represent my opinion on why I will vote for the Democrats this round. I certainly respect everyone's opinion the other way and love the fact that at the end of the day we can disagree and still go ski together. And to those in the service, although I don't think we need to be in Iraq I'm glad you're on my side in the end. If we ever meet, I'll buy the first tank of gas. :)

jimmer2880

10-07-2004, 07:16 AM

Pro Bush here.

As far as Farenheight 9/11, I thought it was interesting the MM says it is a political satire, yet it's up for best documentary? I'd love for him to actually PROVE everything (or half of everything) in that movie.

Genocide? Isn't that what Saddam did in Ruwanda (or something like that - my memory is more than just a little bit fuzzy :confused: ).

I'd better get down off this soap box. The more I talk, the more I realize my memory is failing me... Guess I have no business being here :D

JimN

10-07-2004, 07:42 AM

Al Qaida supposedly (or is it probably?) was behind the Rwanda problem

Saddam didn't do that in Rwanda, he did it in his own country. Mowing down Iraqi citizens, AKA inmates, gassing the Kurds, rape rooms, torture chambers, trashing the Oil For Food program and taking much needed food and supplies from impoverished people, but Kerry and Edwards say it's the "Wrong War, Wrong Time". What exactly is the "Right War, Right Time"? With the evidence that there were Al Qaida training camps and bin Laden's right-hand man recuperating in Iraq, not unknown to Hussein, after his leg surgery, They're too busy worrying about whether everyone in the world likes the US to even think about getting anything substantial done. Kerry doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in the Senate. He voted for more tax increases than any other Senator, has missed more votes than most, and was rated as the most liberal senator. With Kennedy and Rockefeller in there, that's going some. Yet, here he is, trotting out his dog and pony show for two years now in his attempt to unseat Bush, collecting his full salary as a Senator. And getting full Secret Service protection, saying that the protection is a little stifling and that it makes it harder to be near "his people" and do regular things. His "people" are hardly the regular guy on the street, regardless of what he says. I wonder how much he donates to charity.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about the documentation supporting the fact that Chretien, Putin and the Chinese dictator were getting major kickbacks in the Oil For Food program. These are a few of the people Kerry wants to be friends with.??? :rant: Where's Idi Amin or the idiot in North Korea when they need a fifth for Poker?

Fahrenheit 9-11 was billed as a documentary, not satire. He called it satire after everyone said it contained little in the way of fact.

I heard IHOP is having a John Kerry Waffle Spectacular and Dr Scholl's is introducing the John Kerry Flip Flop. Sooo comfortable and sooo good for your feet.

H20skeefreek

10-07-2004, 08:27 AM

Couldn't decide whether or not to chime in, but i guess I will. I am undecided as of yet. I don't like either guy.

Bush is and idiot. He has tarnished our reputation and most countries now see US as warlords. It is GREAT that Saddam Hussein is out of power, but don't tell me it had to be with such an enormous loss of human life. Thousands of OUR boys have died in Iraq. We have special forces that could have easily taken out the regime. I personally think we should quadruple the number of elite troops and handle our military actions in this way, but I'm no military expert. There is "little to no" connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, Bush lied to the American public to take ADVANTAGE of the 9/11 situation. I think this is atrocious.

Kerry is a flip-flopping typical politician. I agree with EVERYTHING he says, but I know he's just telling me what i want to hear. It's obvious. I think the things that he has said recently offend allies and potential allies and I agree with Bush/Cheney that it will be VERY difficult to get the multilateral support he speaks of when he says we are in places for the wrong reasons (even if i agree somewhat). And he looks like Skeletor.

Jimmer, you are thinking of the Iraqi genocide in Halabja I believe.

Al Qaida supposedly (or is it probably?) was behind the Rwanda problem

Saddam didn't do that in Rwanda, he did it in his own country. Mowing down Iraqi citizens, AKA inmates, gassing the Kurds, rape rooms, torture chambers, trashing the Oil For Food program and taking much needed food and supplies from impoverished people, but Kerry and Edwards say it's the "Wrong War, Wrong Time". What exactly is the "Right War, Right Time"? With the evidence that there were Al Qaida training camps and bin Laden's right-hand man recuperating in Iraq, not unknown to Hussein, after his leg surgery, They're too busy worrying about whether everyone in the world likes the US to even think about getting anything substantial done. Kerry doesn't exactly have a stellar track record in the Senate. He voted for more tax increases than any other Senator, has missed more votes than most, and was rated as the most liberal senator. With Kennedy and Rockefeller in there, that's going some. Yet, here he is, trotting out his dog and pony show for two years now in his attempt to unseat Bush, collecting his full salary as a Senator. And getting full Secret Service protection, saying that the protection is a little stifling and that it makes it harder to be near "his people" and do regular things. His "people" are hardly the regular guy on the street, regardless of what he says. I wonder how much he donates to charity.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about the documentation supporting the fact that Chretien, Putin and the Chinese dictator were getting major kickbacks in the Oil For Food program. These are a few of the people Kerry wants to be friends with.??? :rant: Where's Idi Amin or the idiot in North Korea when they need a fifth for Poker?

Fahrenheit 9-11 was billed as a documentary, not satire. He called it satire after everyone said it contained little in the way of fact.

I heard IHOP is having a John Kerry Waffle Spectacular and Dr Scholl's is introducing the John Kerry Flip Flop. Sooo comfortable and sooo good for your feet.

Ron Grover

10-07-2004, 08:55 AM

May be outnumbered on here right now but it is Kerry all the way.

T Scott

10-07-2004, 09:13 AM

:twocents: I am definitely with Kerry for some of the same reasons Sfitzgerald stated. Again, Kerry is not the perfect candidate, but for my beliefs, he is better than Bush. The debate last Tuesday confirmed the fact for me that Bush has a hard time putting together a complete sentence. Not who I want in charge of my money and security. Go Kerry, go.

H20skeefreek

10-07-2004, 09:15 AM

May be outnumbered on here right now but it is Kerry all the way.

But he looks like Skeletor.

ktn_cmu

10-07-2004, 09:46 AM

I like Bush...oh, wrong post...but he works too... :D

Everyone should take a look at this website...

http://www.beaglexp.com/archives/001678.html

Here a little to wet your whistle:

JOHN FORBES KERRY, "MAN OF THE PEOPLE"

CAREER OBJECTIVE

President of the United States, Renter of the Lincoln bedroom,
Intern Supervisor, Commander and Chief and Defender of the Working
Man, I mean Person

EDUCATION

Educated at Swiss Boarding Schools -- because my parents did not
like me that much

Attended elite private schools like Fessenden School in West
Newton, Massachusetts and St. Paul's in New Hampshire -- just
like your kids

Graduated Yale University, 1966 (I am much smarter than that Bush
guy -- oh, wait, he also went to Yale.) etc......

ktn_cmu

10-07-2004, 09:53 AM

For anyone who thinks Kerry is the better choice...think again...read here...

http://kerry-04.org/new_soldier.php

Stritt

10-07-2004, 09:56 AM

Bush! As for Kerry.....Can't trust him.

Zach S

10-07-2004, 10:01 AM

I was reviewing the list of candidates and decided that this was my man.

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BZZ91748 :toast:

River Rat

10-07-2004, 10:22 AM

I don't totally agree with every thing Bush has done but he is doing what he thinks is right and standing behind it. THAT I RESPECT! If Kerry were in the same situation I think he would be pointing the finger and saying "he didí itĒ. I would rather have a decision maker in office than a flip flopper!!
As for that 9/11 movie I will not put money in that a$$$oles pocket.

as for saving money and putting more police on the street to fight terrorism I would rather take the fight to them than fight them on our soil.

I't is Wonderful that we live in a country were we can express our political veiwes and not have to watch our back. Some people arenít so lucky.
:popcorn: :popcorn:

OhioProstar

10-07-2004, 10:25 AM

A couple thoughts after reading the above:
1.1) "Bush provoked" a war we didn't need" - My guess is you weren't sitting on a jetway like I was when planes were raining down on American soil. Yeah, Yeah you will come back with the idea there was no direct link. Use a little common sense in connecting the dots. Saddam offered money to blow up Isrealis, he target Bush 41 for assignation, and harbored many terror camps within his borders. It doesn't take Michael Moore (Who needs to stop wearing that Spartan Hat) to connect those for me.

1.2) "Can't afford" There are many estimates as to how much 9/11 cost financially....in all likelyhood it was in the Trillions. I don't like to link losing American soldiers to money, but continueing with some common sense you can understand what another attack would do to our economy. How many terriorist are being tied up in Iraq rather than out training for another attack or worse...carring that attack out.

2) The fact that the Bush administration has "Tarnished" our global repretation is a false negative. The main countries who opposed the force (France, Germany, Russia, China) we used to topple Iraq are currently being investigated for their parts in the "Oil for Food" program. Most sources say that all the above were owed billions by Saddam and would benfit more from those debts being paid and the kick backs. Once again the UN has been shown to be long on legal proceedings and short on backing anything they vote up.

3) How "Elite" will the troops be if they triple them? Most people who try to become a Special Forces, Seal, CIA op, Force Recon wash out. Does that mean Kerry is going to dumb down the training and acceptance rates?

4) Environmental Regs - I agree that legislation needs to be imposed, but many politicians use scare tactics to get their agenda done. Republicans don't sit around figuring out how to pollute in prestine areas of the country.

5) One only has to look at Kerry's attitude towards Terrorism to understand how he will lead. He missed 75+% of intellegence meetins after the first WT bombing. I don't know about you guys but I would be fired if I missed that much work. He sponsed legislation in the mid-90's to cut billions out of CIA, FBI, and other agencies. Not even Kennedy could vote with him on it. This tells me he has his head in the sand or just doesn't care. To further the clueless position look at his attacks on Bush for not having a plan when he invaded Iraq. The fact is we were to use a pencer move from both the north and south to crush the loyalist in the middle. The 4th army couldn't use Turkey as a springboard so a different plan was used and the operation moved so fast that supply lines were rushing to keep up. Esinhower once said that a battle plan is good up until boots hit the ground and then it goes out the window.

6) "Bush is an idiot" - I have known many people who don't speak well in person but understand what it takes to lead. A good CEO surrounds himself with highly capably people. He did recieve better grades then Kerry at the same college. Probably becuase Kerry never made it to class.

For the most part people have already made up their minds, but at least research Kerry's 20 year Senate record and ask yourself if he stands for what you believe in.

The main countries who opposed the force (France, Germany, Russia, China) we used to topple Iraq are currently being investigated for their parts in the "Oil for Food" program.

Interesting Fact: Kerry has dual citizenship in France...hmmmm

OhioProstar

10-07-2004, 10:54 AM

He proposed in the first debate that more nations would bear the burden in Iraq with him in charge. The French and Germans said catagorically no to that premise the week and the Polish PM was mad that he didn't recognize their contributions. His policies are falling apart without a vote being cast.

He wants a "more" Uni-Lateral position in Iraq but said he would immidately drop the Uni-Lateral discussions with N. Korea that China, Japan, and S. Korea have in favor of direct Bi-Lateral discussions. Shaky logic to say the least.

ktn_cmu

10-07-2004, 11:00 AM

Ohio, I don't think you need to read them cause you seem to have your facts in line, but I think you'd enjoy the links I posted earlier in this thread. Take a look.

bcampbe7

10-07-2004, 11:03 AM

Nader in '04!!!!!!!!!
J/K, but man wouldn't that get the pot stirred... :D

stevo137

10-07-2004, 11:27 AM

The truth will be exposed on the ones who were in bed with sadam.
Regarding the debate, Bush had sleep depravation and wasn't very well prepared. He has much more on his plate than going around criticizing everything and tickling peoples ears with empty promises.
I would not call anyone who graduated from Yale and flew fighter jets an idiot. Maybe not very well spoken at times but I have heard Bush give some very good speeches and he did very well debating Gore.
I think that he will do very well tomorrow night.
Bush deserves four more years to prove himself.
I would ask both of them this question, what have you done that makes you worthy to be president?

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 12:02 PM

Pass the salt. :popcorn:

MasterCrafting

10-07-2004, 12:10 PM

Things are heating up...

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 12:14 PM

As far as Farenheight 9/11, I thought it was interesting the MM says it is a political satire, yet it's up for best documentary? I'd love for him to actually PROVE everything (or half of everything) in that movie.

For what it's worth, I believe there is a line-by-line bibliography freely available online for the statements in the movie. That being said, I believe there's also a line-by-line rebuttal. It's become increasingly more difficult these days to figure out what's true and what's not. Stupid "information age."

If the Democrats came out today and said that water was wet, the Republicans would attempt to rebut the statement. The talking heads of the various news organizations would hold panel discussions on the subject. Bloggers would jam the internet with the pro and con. We'd discuss it on the board. Everyone would beg JimN for his opinion on the subject, and, in the end, resided in the fact that most of us just weren't sure anymore, we'd forget and move on.

With that in mind (and this is just one of those things I've been pondering over the last couple of days), if the Watergate break-in had happened tomorrow instead of when it did, Richard Nixon would have never resigned.

/discuss

captkidd

10-07-2004, 12:17 PM

I can't add much to what has been said, except that Kerry's choice of a running mate really tells you a lot about his priorities. Kerry chose someone who looked good, had nice hair, a nice smile, speaks well, and has a great deal of charm. Other than that, he has absolutely no qualifications for being VP, or heaven forbid president. He never held public office until he was somehow elected as a senator (his opponent wasn't much better), and then he felt qualified to run for president. He's missed practically all of his senatorial obligations for the past 2 years while campaigning, but I doubt that he has returned any of his salary. Being from John Edward's home state (NC) we certainly feel as though we've been screwed over in this aspect. Kerry chose someone who could help him get elected, not someone who was qualified to hold the position.

Bush has made mistakes. He's not a great public speaker (but there are also a lot of televangeists who are really good speakers but who are more concerned about your money than your soul). Still, he must be doing something right. There haven't been any more terrorist attacks (thank God), and while he doesn't deserve all the credit for this, he (and his administration) certainly deserve some credit.

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 12:26 PM

He never held public office until he was somehow elected as a senator (his opponent wasn't much better), and then he felt qualified to run for president.

To be fair, Bush didn't exactly have a long, distinguished political carreer before running for President. He certainly wasn't
the worst governor we've had, at least compared to what we've got now. But what you need to understand is that, in Texas, the Lt. Governor, not the Governor has most of the control.

Also, and I'm sure it's just a typo, but Edwards isn't running for President. ;)

phecksel

10-07-2004, 12:39 PM

Why o why am I allowing myself to get dragged into the foray?

Voted Republican for every president since 1976.

Probably Kerry this year.

Bush's has an extremely bad report card

World opinion, and I deal with people all over the world, of the US just sucks.

Economy is not looking real good

Average citizen income has dropped every year since Bush took office

Disposable income is down even more

We've created a F* mess in Iraq, and now the "justification" for being there was falsely created.

Friend of mine in TX said if Bush is elected she hoped he would not make as much a mess out of the country as he did in TX. She know says he out did himself.

ktn_cmu

10-07-2004, 12:53 PM

phecksel, please take a moment to read over my attachments earlier in this thread.

Oh, and about the economy, it's easy to blame Bush, but when you really look into it, you'll see that the economy was on it's way down, before Clinton left office (you'll also see that it was on it's way up prior to Clinton being elected). Clinton took the office while the economy was on the rise (from a president named bush) and then gave it back (to a President name Bush) after he rode it through the high years...

Kyle

Ric

10-07-2004, 12:53 PM

WHEW! I think we should get back to talking about boats and good form behind the boat everyone and leave the political BS to CNN and coffee shops where nobody is really doing anything anyway.
None of us are truly undecided if we are totally honest.

captkidd

10-07-2004, 12:56 PM

Also, and I'm sure it's just a typo, but Edwards isn't running for President. ;)

Edwards ran for president before finally dropping out of the race. Many were convinced that he did it just to get himself picked as VP candidate. (you actually thought I made a typo? :D )

Stritt

10-07-2004, 12:57 PM

I think Capt Kidd was referring to the primaries in which Edwards was aiming for the Democrat nomination for President.

Kerry wants to condemn the MediCare Prescription Medication program but says he will make MediCare better.

Kerry has a answer for everything, but cannot map out the process for the American people.

Bush has his faults.

But he BELIEVES in his decision. Unlike the Kerry campaign....oops I mean Clinton campaign. James and Paul are showing there trademarks in the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, I think the debate went terrible for Bush. I am afraid of the next 2 debates. I am afraid we will have Kerry as President. Onl good news is if Kerry wins, Hillary will be sidelined for another 8 years :woohoo:

ktn_cmu

10-07-2004, 01:00 PM

Only good news is if Kerry wins, Hillary will be sidelined for another 8 years :woohoo:

Thats the strongest argument for Kerry I have heard yet...wonder why he isn't using that?????

I think the country should be run cooperatively by the members of the discussion board!!!

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 01:08 PM

Edwards ran for president before finally dropping out of the race. Many were convinced that he did it just to get himself picked as VP candidate. (you actually thought I made a typo? :D )

My opportunities are few and far between, I'll admit. :banana:

lakes Rick

10-07-2004, 01:26 PM

CAn any one on here tell me anything good John Kerry has done?? All I hear from him is how bad bush is.. *** has kerry done???

Anyone know that Teresa Heinz made the forbes 400 this year??? MOst people ( and blacks) I know vote democrat because they are for the "working man"... I have never seen a poor democrat in my life.. How the heck are they supposed to know anything about the working man.. Well maybe when Joseph Kennedy SR. use to be a RUM runner during prohibition......

OhioProstar

10-07-2004, 01:57 PM

I have never seen a poor politician for that matter. Term limits need to be created to keep these life long power brokers in check. The days of the simple man being represented were over before the ink dried on the constitution. I give credit for people going in with unrealistic ideas of changing the tone...but when it comes down to brass tacks politicians vote based on who is paying their bills and in most cases it isn't their constituents. This is how we get $400 hammers and $1000 toliet seats.

jimmer2880

10-07-2004, 02:03 PM

one small point. I don't believe Bush lied about the reasons for going to Iraq. I believe he was mis-informed. There is tons of information out there and an individual needs to decide for themselves what is true and what isn't. At that time, I think Bush believed he was telling the truth.

It's a good thing I'm not president, but I can't tell you the number of times I made a decision when I had 2 different opinions to choose from - and chose the wrong one (wish I would have never bought SGI stock at $12.00 a share! - it's currently $1.45ish )

:popcorn:

River Rat

10-07-2004, 02:14 PM

This is good
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 03:31 PM

All I hear from him is how bad bush is. *** has kerry done???

Rick, this isn't an answer to your question, nor is it an endorsement of either candidate. But it strikes me as a sensible strategy for a person running against an incumbent to attack the incumbent's record. At the very least, it makes more sense than the incumbent running more than his share of attack ads in lieu of standing on his record.

I, for one, have never seen a political advertisement that has affected my vote. The negative advertisements are irritating as hell, no matter the target.

If anyone can answer Rick's question, I'd appreciate a comparison as to what Bush had accomplished before he was elected.

I've enjoyed this thread so far.

rem_p

10-07-2004, 03:53 PM

well...there is a lot of informative and interesting topics within this thread. i'm not sure as to how i stand on all the issues, but here is one that i believe in....

the war in Iraq.....regardless of whether or not we think we went for the right reasons, or if it was just a waste of time, money, etc......there are still troops being sent over who had absolutely no vote in goin to war or not....they are simply doing their duty and jobs trying to protect our freedom to get on here and argue our thoughts and beliefs.....so even if we do or don't agree with the war my belief is that WE SHOULD SUPPORT THE COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS...i was not around during WWII but i dont think there were people opposing the war in the ways they did in Vietnam and today.....we need to stick behind the country's and the president's actions, because it is the troops over seas who are having to take care of business...i think we did the right thing by capturing Saddam, however I think it should have been done in the early 90s when the other Bush was president....now i think we need to concentrate on finding Bin Laden...it makes me sick to think that there are people in the world that can just attack america whenever they want. it makes me angry :mad: i wish some of them (cussword) terrorist would come over to Alabama and try startin sh!t....we'd have an open season on there a$$

again these or my beliefs, not ment to be forced upon others, just want my :twocents: to be heard

bcampbe7

10-07-2004, 04:11 PM

:popcorn: Waiting for Knoxes to chime in...

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 04:19 PM

Yeah, where is he. We need a little whiskey on this fire. :friday:

OhioProstar

10-07-2004, 04:23 PM

I think we know his position. :)

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 05:31 PM

Yes, but certainly there isn't any harm in his reposting. Afterall, this is probably the 15th incarnation of this thread by my count. ;)

sfitzgerald351

10-07-2004, 06:14 PM

I'm all for supporting the troops in Iraq. My future brother in law almost had to go even though he just got out. He's talked to folks and it's not pretty over there for sure. My issue is that for the life of me I can't figure out how we are going to get out? We've screwed up their infrastructure so bad and security hasn't really been established so it seems that many people are worse off now than under Saddam. Crazy I know. But I think for most people who kept their head down, having no freedoms, but basic needs met might have been preferable. Now they have 'freedom' (though the lack of security means for a different kind of terror) but a lot are suffering from our bombings, the lack of water / sanitation / electricity, etc...

I do think we need to take care of our military and probably the first thing that needs to be done is to increase the size of it (so we don't have to depend on the guard and reserves to the extent we do and so they are more available for domestic duties like helpin out with hurricane recover) and give them all raises which as I understand haven't really kept up with inflation, etc...

But I don't think we should blindly follow a man who's judgement has shown poor simply because we are now in this mess... I agree that he probably was misled to some degree (though likely because people 'knew' the answer he wanted and looked for it). But it should be apparent now that mistakes were made. Who do you admire more, someone who admits their mistakes, adjusts their position and moves forward, or someone who just sits there entrenched in their own position, refusing the listen or observe facts and reason?

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 06:34 PM

Who do you admire more, someone who admits their mistakes, adjusts their position and moves forward, or someone who just sits there entrenched in their own position, refusing the listen or observe facts and reason?

On a non-political level, I know dozens of people around my hometown who would fit the latter description. From my experience, such people tend to fall into two categories: (1) those who have an entrenched position and can defend it in very thought-provoking, intelligent, and rational manner; and (2) those who have an entrenched position, who offer said position up as res ipsa loquitor, will not listen to an opposing view point, and can be further categorized as loud, stubborn, and irrational.

I know one person around my hometown who falls into the first sub-category. I value and respect his opinion, although it often differs from my own. The rest fall into subcategory two. I tend not to admire these people very much as a general rule. Although that doesn't necessarily mean that there might not be something else I admire about them.

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 06:43 PM

And that one person is ...

east tx skier

10-07-2004, 06:46 PM

Nah, I'm just kidding. K.I.T.T. so ran that administration. I can't decide if he and his red light reminded me more of H.A.L. or a Cylon Raider from Battlestar Galactica.

/discuss

rem_p

10-07-2004, 07:09 PM

oh i thought you were talkin bout gary coleman
:uglyhamme

aprgriggs

10-07-2004, 07:55 PM

This is good
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

I'm with you.....pass the salt back :popcorn:

Hoosier Bob

10-07-2004, 10:55 PM

Very well put. Pres. Bush made it clear that the sand pit known as Iraq is not full of murderous thieving anti-american ingrates (media). This decision was made to stop innocent people from being murdered (all involved) while at the same time taking down a hostile brain damaged threat to our existence. Oil, c'mon he can only serve eight years! I believe these people need our help and if we have the capacity to create real change we should do so. Previously I perceived Iraq as having no one of consequence. Cold but true. Obviously my opinion has changed. Go Bush! :uglyhamme A couple thoughts after reading the above:
1.1) "Bush provoked" a war we didn't need" - My guess is you weren't sitting on a jetway like I was when planes were raining down on American soil. Yeah, Yeah you will come back with the idea there was no direct link. Use a little common sense in connecting the dots. Saddam offered money to blow up Isrealis, he target Bush 41 for assignation, and harbored many terror camps within his borders. It doesn't take Michael Moore (Who needs to stop wearing that Spartan Hat) to connect those for me.

1.2) "Can't afford" There are many estimates as to how much 9/11 cost financially....in all likelyhood it was in the Trillions. I don't like to link losing American soldiers to money, but continueing with some common sense you can understand what another attack would do to our economy. How many terriorist are being tied up in Iraq rather than out training for another attack or worse...carring that attack out.

2) The fact that the Bush administration has "Tarnished" our global repretation is a false negative. The main countries who opposed the force (France, Germany, Russia, China) we used to topple Iraq are currently being investigated for their parts in the "Oil for Food" program. Most sources say that all the above were owed billions by Saddam and would benfit more from those debts being paid and the kick backs. Once again the UN has been shown to be long on legal proceedings and short on backing anything they vote up.

3) How "Elite" will the troops be if they triple them? Most people who try to become a Special Forces, Seal, CIA op, Force Recon wash out. Does that mean Kerry is going to dumb down the training and acceptance rates?

4) Environmental Regs - I agree that legislation needs to be imposed, but many politicians use scare tactics to get their agenda done. Republicans don't sit around figuring out how to pollute in prestine areas of the country.

5) One only has to look at Kerry's attitude towards Terrorism to understand how he will lead. He missed 75+% of intellegence meetins after the first WT bombing. I don't know about you guys but I would be fired if I missed that much work. He sponsed legislation in the mid-90's to cut billions out of CIA, FBI, and other agencies. Not even Kennedy could vote with him on it. This tells me he has his head in the sand or just doesn't care. To further the clueless position look at his attacks on Bush for not having a plan when he invaded Iraq. The fact is we were to use a pencer move from both the north and south to crush the loyalist in the middle. The 4th army couldn't use Turkey as a springboard so a different plan was used and the operation moved so fast that supply lines were rushing to keep up. Esinhower once said that a battle plan is good up until boots hit the ground and then it goes out the window.

6) "Bush is an idiot" - I have known many people who don't speak well in person but understand what it takes to lead. A good CEO surrounds himself with highly capably people. He did recieve better grades then Kerry at the same college. Probably becuase Kerry never made it to class.

For the most part people have already made up their minds, but at least research Kerry's 20 year Senate record and ask yourself if he stands for what you believe in.

stevo137

10-07-2004, 10:58 PM

Bob, open invite, come and ski some time! ;)

rem_p

10-07-2004, 11:09 PM

my how this has grown

Hoosier Bob

10-07-2004, 11:10 PM

Talk about amonia and bleach! I won't say anything else due to the fact we all have one heck of a common thread! We are all "Water Skiing Mastercraft Driving Americans! It's like trying to get the smell out of fish! Can't be done! We'll ski soon. Bob, open invite, come and ski some time! ;)

stevo137

10-07-2004, 11:18 PM

Bob, you must have seen the pic! ;)

rem_p

10-08-2004, 12:02 AM

well i just seen on the news that a new jib jab cartoon will debut in less than an hour.......i cant wait now...i guess i'll have to stay up an extra hour tonite :D

rem_p

10-08-2004, 12:04 AM

hey i finally made the MC Enthusest status......cool :dance: :banana:

NeilM

10-08-2004, 12:07 AM

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:...---... :popcorn:

OhioProstar

10-08-2004, 10:32 AM

In a world of instant gratification where satellite uplinks spread news across the globe as it happens we have forgotten what our soldiers have been able to accomplish. Since 2001 the US has toppled two nations that were at minimum supporters of terrorism. Thousands of al Qaeda have been killed or arrested in more than 130 countries.

It is very naive to think that a country can be stood up immediately when those very people were living in the Stone Age just months before. Even existing "civilized" countries liberated in WWII took years to get back to normal. German and Japanese zealots created problems for years after surrender until the Allies hunted them down and killed them were they stood. Meanwhile media sources in the US parade pictures of inmates with underwear on their heads as testaments to how poorly the US is handling foreign policy. If you see them call out the terrorists that are be-heading innocent people with the same fervor I will give you the pink slip to my boat.

My point is it will take time to create an Iraq and Afghanistan that can stand on its own and all the politicians that are busy trying to make a political foothold with reconstruction rhetoric only slow the process down and embolden the people who are against us. Has it occurred to anyone that in the last 25 years there hasnít been a major incident or war that didnít involve Islamo-Fascists? At some point we need to understand that Bush is taking the war to the people who are taught from the time that they can walk to hate infidels and in some sects implore them to kill those non-believers. The world has changed and we need leadership that understands that and can adaptÖÖOkay I am off my soapbox now.

east tx skier

10-08-2004, 11:39 AM

Bob, I laugh everytime I read your signature. Best line of that movie.

Smitty

10-08-2004, 01:25 PM

:twocents: Let's take this from another angle; the economy.

I have yet to hear from the Kerry campaign as to how he intends to improve our economy. A lot of blame has been placed on President Bush on not being able to produce more jobs in this country. But I don't hear Kerry making any plans to produce those jobs himself. Being a small business owner, I provide jobs to people. The cost of Health care, insurance and taxes has made it difficult for us to produce more of those jobs that Kerry wants. Instead, he wants to tax small business more. How am I suppose to produce more jobs with less revenue.

Health Care as well. The attack on 9/11 was not just an attack on buildings and people, but our economy as well. Insurance companies lost of $90 Billion that day. The only way they have been able to recover those losses is through higher premiums and smarter investing. Edwards made his $ millions suing the insurance industry. Tort reform and limits are a must if we wish to have afforable insurance, but Kerry and Edwards won't support it. My wife's OB/GYN just quit her job a few months ago because she could not afford to pay her premiums for Malpractice insurance. Kerry and Edwards answer to Health Insurance is to get prescription drugs from foreign countries. But, isn't that going to take away jobs from U.S. companies. I have a half dozen friends that work in the health care industry. Sounds to me that Kerry and Edwards wants to get rid of their jobs.

And what about this war! Kerry voted yes and said no to funding it. He even stood infront of the Grand Canyon in July and said he would have still voted yes knowing what he knows now. Kerry, I like my waffles with strawberries and powered sugar. All I hear from Democrats is how bad President Bush is but, I have yet to hear from one Democrat why they would vote for Kerry. This election is not about picking a better president, it's about getting Bush out of office. Show me one thing that Kerry has done in his 20 years as a Senator that would make him a better President and don't tell me why Bush is such a bad President.

President Bush is a man of conviction and principle. He doesn't need the help of the world community to make decisions for this country. John Kerry thinks that the UN has our best interest. The UN has no interest in protecting American's. I don't want France, Germany, and Russia making foreign policy decisions for this country. I want a President that can make decisions on what's best for us, not for them. Take the war to them, before they shed more blood on this soil. Liberty and Freedom has a price, and if we aren't willing to pay that price then we don't deserve it. We are defenders of freedom and liberators of the oppressed. Take some pride in the fact that 10 million Afgan's have the right to vote. Something we take for granted every year. Saddam hated America, encouraged terrorism, and funded the families of Palistinian terrorists. We are a better world without him. But if you want the UN dictating your foreign policy then vote for Kerry.

Sorry Kerry and Edwards, you can't have your cake and eat it to!

Ric

10-08-2004, 02:19 PM

On a non-political level, I know dozens of people around my hometown who would fit the latter description. From my experience, such people tend to fall into two categories: (1) those who have an entrenched position and can defend it in very thought-provoking, intelligent, and rational manner; and (2) those who have an entrenched position, who offer said position up as res ipsa loquitor, will not listen to an opposing view point, and can be further categorized as loud, stubborn, and irrational.

I know one person around my hometown who falls into the first sub-category. I value and respect his opinion, although it often differs from my own. The rest fall into subcategory two. I tend not to admire these people very much as a general rule. Although that doesn't necessarily mean that there might not be something else I admire about them.

None of us are truly undecided if we are totally honest.

Rockman

10-08-2004, 02:42 PM

I really don't favor either of them and that probably puts me in a worse position.

Kerry-Everything he has to say starts with "Bush didn't do this right, he didn't do that right, etc." I've yet to really hear what he (Kerry) is going to do.

Bush-Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. Was kinda excited to watch it to try to see what actually was true vs. made up. When the movie was over, it did really make me think about things a bit different but this movie really wouldn't make me do a 180.

There are many things that none of will ever really know what happened such as that plane that blew up off the coast of NY/ Mass a few years ago.

Kinda scary just in general that no matter who gets the job, things will never change. :twocents:

:popcorn: Can I get a Jack and Coke over here?

east tx skier

10-08-2004, 03:47 PM

Didn't you already post that, Ric? I didn't think I'd said I was undecided? :)

east tx skier

10-08-2004, 04:46 PM

Since I just got one of those Dish Network DVRs, I'm recording the debate and going to see Friday Night Lights. I'm still hoping Bush will borrow Will Ferrell's best lines from Old School to close one of his answers tonight though.

"THAT'S HOW YOU DEBATE!!!"
-Frank the Tank

OhioProstar

10-08-2004, 04:51 PM

DVR is the greatest thing to happen to TV since Color!!!!!

You will find yourself waiting until half way through scheduled shows so you can fast forward through comercals.

east tx skier

10-08-2004, 04:59 PM

Ohio, I'm already there. I held off on TIVO for so long because I didn't want to pay any more subscription fees. Since I get all the pay channels, the subscription fee is waived. 120 gig hard drive. With the new Mini DV camera, I can get a good transfer and download it to the computer to burn to DVD.

The only thing that disappointed me was that there wasn't a firewire or USB 2.0 connection on the back of this thing to do straight digital transfers.

Knoxes

10-08-2004, 05:45 PM

I think we know his position. :)

hehe. Ola, my friends... I changed browsers at home and couldn't get in. I'll need a few minutes to collect my thoughts and review what's been said so far.

And I think you'll be surprised, OP. ;)

ktn_cmu

10-08-2004, 05:54 PM

I'll need a few minutes to collect my thoughts and review what's been said so far.

Hurry Up, I am leaving work in 7 minutes... :D

Ric

10-08-2004, 05:54 PM

Didn't you already post that, Ric? I didn't think I'd said I was undecided? :)
Yes, I may post that several more times as this thread grows just for the helluvit because I still laugh when the polls speak of "undecided" I dont think they exist

Your example only reminded me again that there are different temperaments and convictions out there but no real undecided voters.

Leec

10-08-2004, 06:22 PM

"WRONG PLACE,
WRONG TIME,
WRONG WAR!!! "
Now don't you want to go fight in that war? Who would want to be an allie in that war? Kerry really thinks after what he has said to the World that any country is going to back him? Us?
I tried and tried to post a voice recording of Kerry,(I can email it to you if you want to here it) no matter what the issue, he talked both sides of them all! It is not a made up voice either, it is different times when he was for the war then against the war, for funding the war, then against funding the war. There are so many items, I am sorry I can't remember them all. Senioritis!!!!! LOL:o

:smile:

paulphillipson

10-08-2004, 08:45 PM

Ok, whether you are a Right-Wing Nut Job or Liberal Weenie (RWNJ for me), the new film clip is now on JibJab.com. More excellent bipartisan lampooning.

east tx skier

10-09-2004, 11:47 PM

Caught it on Friday. Great for a chuckle.

east tx skier

10-09-2004, 11:55 PM

Your example only reminded me again that there are different temperaments and convictions out there but no real undecided voters.

They may not be so undecided as they are unpolled. I'm always surprised to see how many people, who aren't actually running for office themselves, are so easily able to to identify with and adopt the label of one party or the other. I don't tend to agree with either party on 100% of the issues.

captkidd

10-11-2004, 12:02 PM

Doug, how was "Friday Night Lights"? Maybe we need a movie review thread on here, but since I only see about one movie every six months I won't be able to add much.

sfitzgerald351

10-11-2004, 04:29 PM

Some good points on here. Though I'm still in the Kerry camp I do agree that it remains to be seen what Kerry will do. I think many people find that unsettling (and probably rightfully so). However, I have generally disagreed with Bush's past actions (cut taxes/raise spending, disect good environmental regs, invade Iraq/not provide much $$ for local security) and don't see him changing course.

In the interest of trying to provide some interesting factual information take a look at the following link. Of course this is slanted as well (otherwise they wouldn't have written the letter) but I think it brings up some good points. I know several of these professors and they have personally verified that the letter is true and not some internet hoax. To me, the fact that some of the nations leading economists are worried, makes me worried. These are the people who teach the political advisors, business leaders, etc.... so I don't think it's easy to discount their point.

http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/

Cheers.

east tx skier

10-11-2004, 05:59 PM

Capt., I liked it, but it was no Rudy. According to my wife and a friend of hers who played football against Odessa P., and who later went on to play on a Texas State Champion football team a few years after the time frame in the movie, there were at least a couple of inaccuracies in that movie. My wife and her friend/my friend are both from Marshall, Texas, who in the movie was the first team Odessa played. The movie indicates that Odessa beat them at home, when, in fact, Odessa lost to them in Marshall. From that point on, I was about the only person in our group that could concentrate on the movie.

All in all, pretty good and worth my ticket plus my $.02.

Scott, one thing you reminds me of something I've been wondering about as of late. Low taxes, high spending. I remember a time when Republicans didn't support such things as increased spending. I'm no economist, but it doesn' make a great deal of fiscal sense to this English major, who, incidentilly, is a fan of low taxes as a general rule. I guess what I'm trying to say is that limited government used to be the rationale (and a pretty good one) for tax cuts.

Ric

10-11-2004, 06:12 PM

Y.A. Tiddle was from Marshall

The only thing I can say about 43's spending is that we don't get the luxury of beating down deficits with short term debt in this wartime economy.

sfitzgerald351

10-11-2004, 06:19 PM

I'm a bit spastic in my voting because I favor lowing taxes and reducing government spending (mainly because rarely does the government seem to spend my $$ well), but also providing for social safety nets and avoiding 'tragegy of the commons' type issues (e.g. everyone polluting the lake since no one has reason not to in the absence of regulation). Under Bush we get selective tax cuts (which BTW haven't seemed to have made a difference in my personal taxes or those of the small company I consult to) and increased spending. At some point the debt will catch up to us.

Now some debt is actually good. Think about buying a house. Taking on a manageable level of debt allows you to buy a house, provides jobs for real estate agents, homebuilders, Home Despot, etc... and you have incentive to take care of this asset. This produces positive gains. However, if you take on too much debt and rack up the credit card bills for instance it all comes collapsing down on you and you end up in bancruptcy, losing the house, etc... I just distilled about 2 years of econ and finance into 2 sentences so it's a really rough explanation but I think you get the idea. Gov't debt is climbing again and the economists are getting worried. So am I. I don't think it's fair for someone to increase spending without increasing taxes and accepting responsibility for the increase. Politically Bush is doing the easy thing. What citizen wouldn't like lower taxes and more services from the gov't? I think that would be awesome... the problem is that it's not sustainable.

east tx skier

10-11-2004, 06:20 PM

Hey Ric, who is Y.A. Tiddle? (Google thinks he's a show dog) ;)

east tx skier

10-11-2004, 06:24 PM

Scott, again, I'm no economist, and maybe I'm still up on the sugar cookie I just ate, but I gotta say, what you just said makes a lot of sense.

I've got to remember that one, Ric. I was made to sit down on Saturday night and watch a tape of the Marshall Mavericks versus the Judson San Antonio for the 5A Big School State Championship (1990). But it was mainly to see my wife with gigantic hair and wearing a drill team outift.

Heading to Houston for the night (sadly for a funeral). Am I heading for better weather at least? Answer quick, I'm leaving in 5 minutes.

Ric

10-11-2004, 06:33 PM

nice and sunny here sorry for your loss have a nice trip anyway and catch us another time for a pull! (whenever my new boat comes in!)

east tx skier

10-11-2004, 06:36 PM

Will do. I appreciate the kind sentiment. So am I to understand that you sold the 190 and are waiting on the new one? I may not respond further for about 3.5 hours.

Ric

10-11-2004, 06:39 PM

Yes, the 190 is sold (man I'm going to miss that boat!) and the new 197 is on order.
I won't be easy to deal with for the next 8 weeks!

sfitzgerald351

10-11-2004, 06:56 PM

Ric,

In general I disagree with supply-side economics since it seems to be a limited view of the world not taking into account many other macroeconomic issues. But more than that I find that I don't like the supply side economics as practiced in the past (e.g. 'trickle down' economics) since the evidence seems to point to it not working... One (very crude) example. Tax cuts benefits the more well to do (even considering an across the board reduction, which is not what we usually see proposed, a 10% reduction for someone earning $1million is more dollars than a 10% reduction for someone earning $10,000) In theory they then take their savings and spend them which invigorates the economy. However, the tax cuts generally only favor the real upper class and it seems that they simply can't spend their money faster than they currently do so giving them more $$ to spend isn't going to do much for the economy. I found a relatively interesting write-up here that goes into greater detail. A bit dense but it's a good summary for those who are interested in this type of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Ric

10-11-2004, 08:02 PM

I hate to get into this stuff on a waterski site but I'm not sure supply side has been or ever will be fully applied. Reaganomics was as close as we've seen but congress increased spending to offset the results. Spending is what won the cold war too, so I'm not saying it was all bad, just not a true model.
Bush 43's spending was mentioned earlier by someone. I don't like deficits, but I can't imagine a balanced budget and respond properly to what's happened to us in the last 3or4 years. 9/11 & corporate scandals killed revenue & created a need for military and social spending the likes of which we've not seen.
Anybody ever been hired by a poor guy?

sfitzgerald351

10-11-2004, 08:28 PM

Definitely some truth to whats been said. But as for being hired by a rich guy I've been hired by more small businesses than rich guys. And speaking for one small firm I work for currently the tax cuts don't make a difference at all. Having consumers making money to buy the products does make a difference. Though I guess we get into a chicken and the egg issue here when you consider who hires the consumer to buy our products. I just think its better to aid the consumer directly than to let things 'trickle down'. I think it is unlikely that we'd ever get full supply side economics to see if it works and the partial implementation doesn't seem to work so why don't we pursue other policies that do seem to work better (especially after they get bastardized by the political process)

On another note: remember that most corporations avoid paying most of their taxes. Avoid is actually a bad word. They simply pay far less than you would assume given what comes out of our paychecks. As an example I consult for a (private) company that will do US $1 billion in revenue this year and will likely pay under $100k in taxes. See this news article about a report for the GAO. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s/

Ric

10-12-2004, 01:22 PM

Yes & when you really think about it, it's still you & me that pay taxes.
"huge corporations" as they are tagged, (or any business for that matter) aren't ever really the ones taking a beating when some do-gooder decides to hit them with higher taxes to make things "fair" for the little guy. It's always the little guy that pays. No matter what it costs to make energy & no matter how it's taxed, the consumer ultimately pays that tax increase. Astros are gonna get your sox!

sfitzgerald351

10-12-2004, 01:41 PM

Astros are gonna get your sox!

Here we were having a nice little political discussion and you have to go and stir up the pot with inflammatory nonsense! ;) I guess we'll have to see what happens this week... :)

Ric

10-12-2004, 01:58 PM

haaaaaa Stros are lucky to even be here and I will be the first to admit it! But I do like ribbing you and THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE!

captkidd

10-12-2004, 02:59 PM

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Back to the football movies. My wife and I rented the movies "8 Seconds" and "Rudy" at the same time (any guesses as to which of us picked the movies that night). We watched "Rudy" first and near the end of the movie the game clock was stopped on 0:08. My otherwise intelligent wife said, "Oh, now I know why they called this movie '8 Seconds'". :rolleyes:

Needless to say I've never let her live that one down. Both are very good movies, but Rudy is excellent.

OhioProstar

10-12-2004, 03:35 PM

"its better to aid the consumer directly than to let things 'trickle down'"

There is a huge difference between variations of SSE and re-distribution of wealth.

Lets do a hypothetical: The former owner of my company sold the company he built after 11 years and now has interest in investing his money for the long term. He decides to build a strip mall in a semi-rural yet growing area in Ohio. What does he do? He employs a local accountant, a lawyer, a real estate agent, a general contractor, and geo-survey company. All of the above are small to medium size businesses. All the above have multiple people working for them. Now lets look at who benefits from his investment. He buys land from a retiring farmer, prior to closing he employs the geo-survey team to make sure all aspects of the land will support a large building and associated access and delivery routes. That company is does a good job and now is on the investors radar for the future. Next the general contract puts in place multiple teams to develop and finish the property...all parties making pretty good money. A local convenience store makes more money as those workers buy their morning coffee and soda's there. Once the job is done the investor has secured tenets through the same real estate agent that found the property to begin with. Those store employ people who in turn go out and buy things. Finally the local tax base sees an increase in revenue and little Johnny can now play football without having to pay-to-play. Think of the process as being a family tree that just gets broader toward the roots. So one guy has helped scores of people make ends meet. That is TOP DOWN economics.

Alternatively, Bottom UP economics would require a much larger number of participants to produce the same amount of jobs. Re-distribution of wealth does nothing to stir the economy on the bottom end and creates a massive disincentives on the top end. Socialism is great for college professors to theorize about but that panacea will never come to existence because the strong will always try to excell and the weak will always drag the mean average down. Also remember that the top 2 income brackets start at $200k and include private business owners that have not being incorporated in some manner. That means if you have worked hard and can finally afford a new PS190 you probably fall into the "rich" catagory that the democrates would like to tax.

Leec

10-12-2004, 05:19 PM

Hey Ohio you left me out of the equation and all the people that work under me and above me! That is Insurance! General Liability,Fire, Keyman Life Insurance, and if the person has anyone now working for him as a W-2 EE he provides group health,life and Workmens comp. Oh and a possible Pension Plan or 401K plan if he is successful. :woohoo:

:smile:

sfitzgerald351

10-12-2004, 05:28 PM

Ohio,

I totally agree with what you said. That's how capitalism works and I certainly don't see the need to move to a socialistic society. What I meant by aiding the consumer directly was that tax cuts at the top of the food chain seem to me to be relatively less effective than cuts at the bottom of the chain. That's all.

To use your example. changing tax policy at the top would likely not affect your investor's decisions much. That is, if he sells his company for $1million and the taxes are $200k or $150k (20% vs the lowered 15% capital gains rate) on the sale it doesn't make much of a difference in how to spend the remaining ~800k+. The key is that aggregated over many such individuals that tax cut results in serious revenue lost to the government that can be used to fund things like roads, unemployement insurance and the military without driving up the deficit. The contractor and the survey company still get their work, though the strip-mall might be incrementally smaller. Put another way, it doesn't seem like the tax cut is large enough to encourage any one person to change their behavior enough to the point that the aggregated benefits is more than what not cutting taxes could provide...

Don't take that to mean that I advocate raising taxes and having the gov't provide more services, for the most part many services are best left to private industry which is often more efficient. My point is simply that I haven't seen the evidence presented by economists lately that the tax cuts do what they claimed to do.

JimN

10-12-2004, 07:44 PM

A couple of things about tax cuts/rates, rich people and how much good small tax cuts do. The highest tax rate is more than double the lowest rate. We have more people making over $200K/year than any time in history. We also have more low income people than any time in history. So, who is paying the bulk of the taxes? Mid to high income, that's who. The middle class is comprised of more people partially because the range of income that defines middle class has broadened. If the taxes paid by the top 10% of all earners were removed from the total taxes collected, the remaining total would be about 49% of the original amount.

These people make a whole lot of money. They also don't rely on SS to be much of a factor in their retirement income picture and they also stop paying in on wages over $67,500 (correct me if I'm wrong with the figure). Rich people are rich because they have come up with an idea, product or service that makes them a lot of money, have inherited it, invested well, or here's a novel idea- They didn't spend more than they made! They also know what to spend their money on, when to buy and, possibly more importantly, when to sell whatever it is that they bought. They also use the tax code to their advantage, something lower income people haven't done much of, but are starting to do more. The difference in the kind of debt when comparing the high income and lower income people is that when someone has a lot of money, they can buy bigger things at a better rate than someone with little or no collateral. They also have a different relationship with their bank(s). Borrowing $1M at 1.5% to upgrade a house is totally different from paying 5.25% on a home equity loan or line of credit on a $25K - $50K remodel. The equity gained by sticking $1M into it more than pays for the interest. The increase in equity on a home equity loan may offset the interest and principal paid, but it won't necessarily be quick.

Scott- what's wrong with giving a 10% tax cut to someone who pays 39% of their wages in taxes? They still pay 35.1% after the cut. A person who pays 15% now will pay 13.5% after the cut. If the person made $200K and paid 39%, a 10% cut means that they pay $7800 less tax. They're still paying more than double in taxes than the person making $30K paying 15% grossed. Would you rather give the person paying 39% and the person paying 15% the same dollar amount in the tax cut? That would hardly be fair. Why not go to a flat tax?

sfitzgerald351

10-12-2004, 08:41 PM

Jimn,

I agree with many of your statements. And a flat tax might solve lots of issues from an effeciency point of view. But I also believe that part of being a good citizen is helping those around you. Yes I pay more in taxes than the guy making $15,000 or $30,000 per year both in absolute and in percentage terms. But to me that is how it should be since the low earner (not withstanding the saving / spending issues you correctly brought up) is just trying to make ends meet. (By definition most of us on this board are not in this situation since we own a Mastercraft. As for me I bought a 1984 so I could pay cash). But for the family of 4 who parents are janitors paying the rent and putting bread on the table is a much harder task and I think that it is fair that I pay a bit more for roads, health care, etc... because I either use the services more (roads) or because it is actually more expensive to not provide the services (insurance comes to mind here).

That said, my main point was that Bush's primary cut was for capital gains which most people don't pay, only usually the 'rich' who have significant investments. The idea behind these cuts is that the savings to those that benefit will trickle down to everyone else which will jump start the economy. The evidence is not there that this works... reference the link I posted a few messages ago for an example (to save you from scrolling up it's http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/)

I agree that we want to encourage people to live within their means and I certainly don't want to discourage hard work and making money. It's what allowed this country to become great. And I certainly am not an advocate of raising taxes. But I don't think you can make tax cuts that don't seem to serve their intended purpose and raise spending at the same time. To me that is very irresponsible. To quote you "they didn't spend more than they made." Exactly right. But right now Bush IS spending more than he is making by directing the gov't to spend lots in Iraq for example but also cutting tax revenue. You can't have it both ways.

ktn_cmu

10-13-2004, 10:07 AM

I spend more than I make. At least...so far. The difference is, I spent my money (mostly) on assets (anything that puts money in your pocket, or is expected to) and many people (those "trying to make ends meet") spend their money on liabilities (anything that doesn't put money in your pocket and isn't intended to, ie and brand new car when a used one would be just fine and a heck of a lot more reasonably priced). Now, the question is, is the war in Iraq an Asset or a Liability???

Kyle

OhioProstar

10-13-2004, 10:39 AM

Just to correct a statement Scott made, all people who have Pensions, 401(k)s, IRA's, Mutual Funds will be impacted by the dividend roll back. That roll back allows the gains your funds make increase at a higher rate.

The statement that as a good citizen I should prop up the people around me is wrong. Lets say I work my A$$ off and have a good month....the take home I can count on is 48% of the Gross. That is ridiculous, I don't care who you are. Every American works hard to be in a position to have some extra cash sitting around and once you are there you get slammed by the politicians who want to spread the wealth around. The poor in this country have big screens, cable, new shoes, etc......Rich if you compare them to areas in San Paulo, Mexico City, or thousands of other city around the globe.

Ric

10-13-2004, 11:56 AM

Jimn,

I agree with many of your statements. And a flat tax might solve lots of issues from an effeciency point of view. But I also believe that part of being a good citizen is helping those around you. Yes I pay more in taxes than the guy making $15,000 or $30,000 per year both in absolute and in percentage terms. But to me that is how it should be since the low earner (not withstanding the saving / spending issues you correctly brought up) is just trying to make ends meet. (By definition most of us on this board are not in this situation since we own a Mastercraft. As for me I bought a 1984 so I could pay cash). But for the family of 4 who parents are janitors paying the rent and putting bread on the table is a much harder task and I think that it is fair that I pay a bit more for roads, health care, etc... because I either use the services more (roads) or because it is actually more expensive to not provide the services (insurance comes to mind here).

That said, my main point was that Bush's primary cut was for capital gains which most people don't pay, only usually the 'rich' who have significant investments. The idea behind these cuts is that the savings to those that benefit will trickle down to everyone else which will jump start the economy. The evidence is not there that this works... reference the link I posted a few messages ago for an example (to save you from scrolling up it's http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/)

I agree that we want to encourage people to live within their means and I certainly don't want to discourage hard work and making money. It's what allowed this country to become great. And I certainly am not an advocate of raising taxes. But I don't think you can make tax cuts that don't seem to serve their intended purpose and raise spending at the same time. To me that is very irresponsible. To quote you "they didn't spend more than they made." Exactly right. But right now Bush IS spending more than he is making by directing the gov't to spend lots in Iraq for example but also cutting tax revenue. You can't have it both ways.
be careful here,
we discussed the need for deficit military spending in a wartime economy already but we are back to debating supply side theory if you think that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue.

east tx skier

10-13-2004, 12:26 PM

be careful here,
we discussed the need for deficit military spending in a wartime economy already but we are back to debating supply side theory if you think that cutting taxes doesn't increase revenue.

That was always my thought about supply side economics. Does it work when you have to overspend. I may have started this portion of the thread when I asked what had happened to the Republican notion of limited government. I recognize, as Ric notes, that there is a need for military spending inasmuch as we have a great number of troops in harm's way. But, that being the case, is it reasonable to employ, or reemploy, a supply-side model with ever-increasing spending as a given.

And speaking of taxes, Ric, is there a cap to our new deduction for sales tax in Texas, or do I save every receipt from now on? Also, do you know if it applies to the 2004 tax year?

Ric

10-13-2004, 01:46 PM

I still think cutting taxes on anybody stimulates the economy and therefore increases revenue but I don't think it will balance the budget in a wartime economy.

My point is that rollback of tax cuts or increasing taxes will not stimulate the economy and ultimately will not increase revenue.

As far as the new TX deal allowing deductions of sales tax, I really don't know the details of it.

jimmer2880

10-13-2004, 01:47 PM

some required reading for anyone who thinks Saddam should NOT have been "ousted"

Can you post any factual information about (or at least something from somewhat of an authority) about evidence that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and increases revenue? I think this is a fundamental difference in our opinions. All the economists I know and have spoken to have pointed that it doesn't (again see that link I posted for a recent example). I think until we have some more facts to debate we're probably all shooting in the dark a bit.

Now I just need to stop worrying about this stuff and get to the more important thing of getting my boat winterized before it drops below freezing! :D

ktn_cmu

10-13-2004, 05:27 PM

I just noticed something kind of fun (well...it's late, I am ready to go home...)

Ric is from Texas...
sfitzgerald351 is from Massachusetts...

If I recall...doesn't bush have something to do with Texas...and Kerry...seems to me he has some sort of relationship with Massachusetts...hmmm

ktn_cmu

10-13-2004, 05:29 PM

More tequilla for you kt!!!

Oh...and, yes please... :friday:

OhioProstar

10-13-2004, 05:46 PM

Here is a few pages on SSE.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

Ric

10-13-2004, 05:50 PM

Fitz, I can, but will I? hahahahha We're still too busy skiing here in Texas man!
Kudlow's book has alot on this but, no I'm not interested in that debate.
Who was it that said for every economist, there is an equal and opposite economist?
You may think by my posts that I eat and breathe this stuff, but I don't.
Ross perot had charts & graphs, I'd prefer not to re-live that.
I know there is no changing your mind with data & I also know you will never convince me that increasing taxes will ultimately increase revenue or more importanly JOBS, which seems to be kerry's mantra.

Ric

10-13-2004, 05:53 PM

I just noticed something kind of fun (well...it's late, I am ready to go home...)

Ric is from Texas...
sfitzgerald351 is from Massachusetts...

If I recall...doesn't bush have something to do with Texas...and Kerry...seems to me he has some sort of relationship with Massachusetts...hmmm
THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU

Leec

10-13-2004, 06:03 PM

I just noticed something kind of fun (well...it's late, I am ready to go home...)

Ric is from Texas...
sfitzgerald351 is from Massachusetts...

If I recall...doesn't bush have something to do with Texas...and Kerry...seems to me he has some sort of relationship with Massachusetts...hmmm
Actually it is called Taxachussetts!8p
:smile:

sfitzgerald351

10-13-2004, 06:18 PM

Here is a few pages on SSE.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

Good post (especially since it reinforces my viewpoint). Stern is definitely known for good finance research.

To quote the conclusion of his article "The reason why supply side effects do not work is very simple: the estimated responses of labor supply and savings to tax rate cuts are too small to generate the extra revenues that would maintain a tax rate cut revenue neutral."

Now I just get to go back to looking at my boat while Ric gets to ski! My only solace will be if the Sox triumph.

sfitzgerald351

10-13-2004, 06:22 PM

Funny, the reason I'm in Massachusetts is that MIT gave me a much better deal on grad school (can you say FREE) than UT did... Conspiracy? :eek: I actually really liked Austin and of course, being able to ski on Lake Travis (that's the one, right?) practically year round would have been cool.

Leec

10-13-2004, 06:26 PM

Funny, the reason I'm in Taxachusetts is that MIT gave me a much better deal on grad school (can you say FREE) than UT did... Conspiracy? :eek: I actually really liked Austin and of course, being able to ski on Lake Travis (that's the one, right?) practically year round would have been cool.
Sorry you had to go where all the liberals are!:rant:
:smile:

Ric

10-13-2004, 06:31 PM

How stupid am I? Here I am a regular joe trying to make a living and get caught up debating some MIT grad about economics!
Kid's don't try this at home!
I did pay for my own college though fitz, no free ride ;)